who to believe: a saint or ... ?

Note: if you have not read the 'just askin' tab or its subset, 'she saw what,' please begin there.

Question II: Why would God have allowed his body to remain incorruptible a hundred years after his death?

Does it mean his words are prophetic and to be believed?

We have always stated don't believe us, believe the Saints.

When we read St. Pius' condemnation of the modernists he was encountering way back then, does it not ring true that have now accomplished the very things he spoke against?

We are not SSPXers, although we respect their liturgical views.

But we have been blessed with a relic of the flesh of St. Pius X.

A man the modern Church seems to disregard as it goes headlong into adopting the 'principle of the Americanists.'

The very morals of the Mahonys, Levadas and many others tooooooo numerous to mention.

When a guy like Mahony starts crowing about the end of 'papal ermine,' one can only imagine what went on in a conclave made of men whose ultimate goal seems to be the dethronement of the Throne of Peter.

It is wrong when guys like Mahony remain on such an important board as a member of the Papal Foundation, when, in reality, he should be excommunicated for his crimes along with O'Brien, Weak-land and many others toooooo numerous to mention.

We can look at the words of POPE St. Pius X and ignore them.

Or we can look at them and judge what actions -- not words -- we see coming from the Vatican and we can make a choice.

Stand by silently and continue to watch 'what is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles' or speak out and point out the obvious. The obvious coming from an incorruptible, a Saint, pope, and man of God.

We choose to be obvious, unlike others who couch themselves in great words but whose actions are nothing more than the heretical 'principle of the Americanists': the dethronement of the Throne of Peter.

St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!

'Regarding worship, they [the modernists] say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.

'They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized ... .

'With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy.

'What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?'